UnitedU States DepartmentD of AgricultureA Rural Development Rural - Programs Research Report 231 Comparing Cooperative Principles of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the International Cooperative Alliance For questions about this report, or in general, contact USDA Cooperative Programs at: [email protected], or (202) 720-7558. USDA maintains an on-line library of more than 100 publi- cations about cooperatives at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_LibraryOfPubs.htm. Free hard copies of some of these publications are also available. Requests can be made via the contacts provided above. USDA also publishes “Rural Cooperatives” magazine bimonthly. The current and past issues can be viewed online at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_RurCoopMag.html.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, participating in a USDA program, or participating in a program that receives fi nancial assistance from USDA, you may fi le a complaint with USDA. Information about how to fi le a discrimination complaint is available from the Offi ce of the As- sistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

To fi le a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign and mail a program discrimination complaint form, available at any USDA offi ce location or online at www.ascr.usda.gov, or write to:

USDA Offi ce of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-9410

Or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate offi ce or to re- quest documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Comparing Cooperative Principles i

ABSTRACT

The cooperative principles of the U.S. Department between two sets of contemporary cooperative prin- of Agriculture (USDA) and those of the Interna- ciples in regard to how they distinguish that form of tional Cooperative Alliance (ICA) trace their origins organization from other forms of business. back to the Rochdale statement developed in 1860, but they have evolved in slightly different direc- Keywords principles, organization, members, tions. This report makes selective comparisons values, solidarity

Comparing Cooperative Principles of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the International Cooperative Alliance

Bruce J. Reynolds Economist

USDA Rural Development Rural Business-Cooperative Service RBS Research Report 231 June, 2014 ii Comparing Cooperative Principles

PREFACE This report was presented at the North Central The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) Extension Research Activity -210 (NCERA-210) took a different approach to articulating the distinc- meeting on November 6, 2013 (http://ncera.aae. tiveness of cooperatives with its statement of prin- wisc.edu/). Cooperative principles have been re- ciples in 1995. Leading up to the 1995 statement, vised at various times by different organizations a concern of ICA was that this distinctiveness was since they were fi rst articulated by the Rochdale being lost as some cooperatives were identifying weavers in 1860. themselves as being comparable with investor- By the 1980s, many cooperative leaders and owned in their respective industries. academic researchers believed that cooperative Another concern was that the public was viewing principles needed to be articulated in a way that tax-reduction effi ciency as the primary value of a established their distinctiveness from other forms cooperative. ICA’s approach was to draft a - of organization. As part of several nationwide panel erative identity statement that refl ected values that discussions that focused on how to best position were either lacking in, or irrelevant, to organizations farmer cooperatives for the future, USDA defi ned other than cooperatives. three core cooperative principles in a 1987 state- This examination of the two sets of co-op prin- ment. Its approach was to eliminate “principles” ciples will explain why they differ in particular that were actually “best practices.” The USDA co- attributes, while recognizing that both contribute op statement is a concise defi nition of a distinctive to a better understanding of the unique nature of form of business organization that is controlled by cooperatives. users or producers, rather than investors. 1 Comparing Cooperative Principles of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the International Cooperative Alliance

Bruce J. Reynolds Economist

Introduction provide a distinct identity to the cooperative form of business. A major source of the difference between The cooperative principles defi ned by the U.S. them resides in their respective use of the term Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as “principle.” How the two sets of principles use the those of the International Cooperative Alliance term is the fi rst factor to consider. From that point, (ICA), both trace their origins back to the Rochdale we examine the different philosophical orientations statement, developed in 1860. But the USDA and and beliefs they represent. ICA defi nitions evolved in slightly different direc- A principle can be defi ned as follows: “A prin- tions. Throughout their history, cooperatives have ciple is any such generalization …which provides not departed from the Rochdale ideas about the a basis for reasoning, or… a guide for conduct or importance of democratic control by members and procedure.” (Webster’s Dictionary, as reported by that the primary purpose of a co-op is to serve the Schaars). interests of members. This defi nition is split between “a basis for rea- Yet, cooperative principles have been re-stated soning” and “a guide.” The word “principles” is over time by different groups, with slight variations commonly used in these two different ways, such occurring in these defi nitions of the attributes of a as: cooperative. USDA provided a statement of three cooperative (a) Scientifi c explanations of phenomena, or the es- principles in 1987. ICA issued a revised statement sential methods of a science; of seven cooperative principles in 1995. This report (b) Necessary and suffi cient conditions for an entity makes some selective comparisons between the to have distinct identity or be a type; two sets of contemporary cooperative principles in (c) Behavioral guidance for morality or for civic regard to how they distinguish a co-op from other virtues; types of business organization, particularly from (d) Behavioral guidance for effi ciency and success. business entities focused on maximizing return on investment. The “reasoning” approach of (a) and (b) and the While these two sets of principles do not contra- “guidance” purposes of (c) and (d) are combined, to dict each other, they do have several differences. some extent, in all statements of cooperative princi- This comparison will examine why they are differ- ples. Yet, USDA’s reasoning approach to principles ent by contrasting the justifi cations used by those focuses on defi nition, while the ICA takes more of who developed these alternative statements. It will a guidance approach, with a separate statement for also consider how successful they are in describing defi ning a cooperative. the uniqueness of cooperatives. How cooperative members have understood the meaning of the term “principle” may have infl u- Using the term “principles” enced the ways in which the statements of prin- ciples have been applied. British cooperative leader The cooperative principles of USDA and those of and author, Edgar Parnell, argues that in retrospect the ICA purport to apply to all cooperatives and are a strict adherence to principles has been detrimen- not sector specifi c. Both sets of principles set out to tal to the growth and wider use of cooperatives 2 Comparing Cooperative Principles

(Parnell 1995). He recommends applying rules that impractical, particularly for U.S. agricultural co- guide rather than principles that assert “indisputable operatives when dealing with mounting surpluses. truth.” Parnell understands the term “principle” in However, the ICA has retained the open principle, its methodological reasoning sense and believes that meaning that a cooperative should not discriminate guidance is what matters for cooperatives. Hence, in its membership on the basis of gender, race, or he understands the term “principles” in the sense of religion (MacPherson, 1995). items (a) and (b), not (c) and (d) as described above. The Rochdale statement of nine cooperative USDA principles principles became an international standard. Parnell observes that the Rochdale pioneers regarded their The need to update the principles was a topic of the statement as being rules, and it was not until the mid-1980s meetings with leaders in the U.S. coop- ICA adopted a slightly revised version in 1937 that erative community, held to help prepare a report to they became enshrined as “principles.” Yet, there Congress in 1987: “Positioning Farmer Coopera- are references to the Rochdale Cooperative Prin- tives for the 21st Century.” Although the report was ciples well before 1937. directed to farmer cooperatives, its statement of a In the decades following the U.S. Civil War, the new set of principles was developed to apply to all Grange and then the Alliance movements, followed types of cooperatives. by organizations such as the Farm Bureau, actively The USDA statement of three principles of coop- promoted farmer cooperatives. They adopted and eratives (USDA 3) is as follows: made various adaptations to what they regarded as the Rochdale Principles (Nourse). Some of the • User-Owner Principle: Those who own and principles were included in U.S. State fi nance the cooperative are those who use the statutes. While having some similarities, they were cooperative. often stated with slight variations (Baarda 1979). • User-Control Principle: Those who control the Drawing from Abrahamsen’s textbook, Dave cooperative are those who use the cooperative. Barton, in a later textbook, specifi es the emergence • User-Benefi ts Principle: The cooperative’s sole of eight so-called traditional cooperative principles purpose is to provide and distribute benefi ts to that prevailed in U.S. agriculture during the 20th its users on the basis of their use. century until the 1980s. Six of the eight principles are derived from Rochdale. The USDA 3 provides a concise statement by The Traditional 8 in concise form, are: eliminating what were viewed as practices, rather than principles. When best practices are identifi ed 1. Voting is by members on a democratic (one- to routinely follow, they may become principles, in member-one-vote) basis; the sense that they offer guidance. USDA wanted 2. Membership is open; principles that provided a precise defi nition. 3. Equity is provided by patrons; USDA’s “economic reasoning” approach sought 4. Ownership of voting stock is limited; universal validity through necessary and suffi cient 5. Net income is distributed to patrons as patronage conditions for an organization to be a cooperative. refunds on a cost basis; In using the “reasoning” approach, the USDA 3 6. on equity capital is limited; principles are more of a defi nition of cooperatives 7. Business is done primarily with member-pa- than they are a guide for their conduct. Hence, the trons; USDA 3 follows the (a) and (b) examples. 8. Duty to educate. The Traditional 8 are edited below to refl ect the USDA 3 (crossouts denote practices deleted from By the 1980s, much of the “Traditional 8” were USDA principles): regarded as either “practices” or as archaic. Prin- ciple 4 was redundant if Principle 1 were applied. 1. Voting is by members on a democratic (one- Principle 2, open membership, was viewed as member-one-vote) basis; Comparing Cooperative Principles 3 2. Membership is open; as cooperatives if they satisfy USDA 3. But why 3. Equity is provided by patrons; increase the inclusiveness of a defi nition when the 4. Ownership of voting stock is limited; individuals who organize these entities do not self- 5. Net income is distributed to patrons as patronage identify as cooperatives? refunds on a cost basis (based on their use); 6. Dividend on equity capital is limited; Economics Interpretation 7. Business is done primarily with member-pa- trons; The reduced form approach of specifying the 8. Duty to educate. minimum principles is an immediate indication that USDA 3 was developed by looking through the Principle 1 is “user-control,” with “one-member, lens of economics. USDA 3 is reduced to the essen- one-vote” deleted. Principle 3 is “user-owner.” Prin- tial elements of people working together for their ciples 5 and 7 can be combined to form the “user- mutual interests. While the ICA is willing to accept benefi ts” principle of the USDA 3. general best practices that have stood the test of The principles in USDA 3 are universal and time- time, USDA 3 draws a line between a practice and a less in the sense of not being infl uenced by periodic principle (Dunn). changes in socio-economic conditions or in cultural Another feature of economics is that the indi- norms. By contrast, those who developed the ICA vidual is the basic unit of analysis. Economists principles embrace social and historical experience have traditionally asserted the postulate that the as a source for defi ning the distinctive purposes of individual is the fundamental basis of a cooperative cooperatives. As a result, the ICA statement requires (Schaars). In an infl uential application of economic lengthier explanation. USDA 3 focuses on the es- theory, Emelianoff conceptualized cooperatives as sential difference—cooperatives are businesses an aggregation of individuals (Emelianoff 1942). established for users and do not serve the interests This interpretation was recently discussed in Rural of non-user investors. Cooperatives magazine (Ling). The individualist Indeed, the USDA 3 is often expressed as a postulate is refl ected in discussions of USDA 3 by defi nition of a cooperative rather than as a set of pointing out that a cooperative serves the interests principles. “A cooperative is a user-owned, user- of the “current” user and is not for perpetuating the controlled business that distributes benefi ts on the organization or collective entity (Dunn). basis of use” is a restatement of USDA 3 as a defi ni- Economists believe that assertions about common tion of a cooperative (Zeuli and Cropp). But even as goals must, at a minimum, be validated by pro- a defi nition, it is questionable whether the USDA 3 cesses of aggregating individual choices, but not on excludes other types of organizations that may sat- a priori grounds. In fact, one of the major contribu- isfy its criteria, but which are neither incorporated tions of the individualist postulate of economics is as, nor which self-identify as, cooperatives. Several to understand how group commitments and prac- types of private businesses have no non-user own- tices can lead to conditions that increase individual ers. incentives to act alone or to form dissenting coali- In other words, USDA 3 may not suffi ciently tions (Schelling, Olson, Buchanan, and Tullock). differentiate cooperatives with the emergence of A third aspect of economics that is refl ected in non-cooperative entities that are user-owned, user- USDA 3, but not in other statements of cooperative controlled, and user-benefi ted. principles, is the assumption of wertfrei (value- Such businesses are found in professional ser- free), also referred to as the positivist approach vices and in the booming technology industries and (Robbins, Friedman). Economists avoid asserting are analogous to worker cooperatives. Farmers have social values, yet this cautiousness when applied also actively organized to principles may exclude attributes that contribute (LLCs), with many of these having no non-user to further differentiating cooperatives from other owners, and some do not regard their organizations forms of organization. as cooperatives. These “user” entities can be defi ned The intention of theorists such as Emelianoff, 4 Comparing Cooperative Principles among others, was to defi ne the cooperative in a as voluntary and open membership or democratic way to preserve distinctiveness from other forms of member control. But others leave room for interpre- business in so far as that served the requirements for tation. applying economic analysis and methodology. An The statement of identity is in three parts: a defi - economics approach, however, may not satisfy other nition of a cooperative, a list of cooperative values, requirements necessary for defi ning a unique coop- followed by the statement of seven principles. erative identity. Defi nition: A cooperative is an autonomous asso- ICA 7 ciation of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and Turning to the seven principles of the Internation- aspirations through a jointly owned and democrati- al Cooperative Alliance (ICA 7), the idea of individ- cally controlled enterprise. ual self-interest is operative but social theory is also Values: Cooperatives are based on the values of applied to defi ning and guiding cooperatives. The self-help, self-responsibility, , equal- ICA had issued statements of cooperative principles ity, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their in 1937 and 1966; by the early 1980s they were al- founders, cooperative members believe in the ethi- ready considering a re-statement that fi nally came in cal values of honesty, openness, social responsibil- 1995 (Hoyt). When revisiting the ICA principles of ity, and caring for others. 1966, it was deemed critically important to combine Principles: principles within an identity statement. 1. Voluntary and Open Membership – Coopera- ICA 7 set out to establish a unique identity for co- tives are voluntary organizations, open to all operatives. But applying the ICA identity statement persons able to use their services and willing to as criteria is more complicated than the concise accept the responsibilities of membership, with- defi nition of USDA 3. out gender, social, racial, political, or religious The importance of identity was in reaction to the discrimination. earlier ICA principles and the drift of some coopera- 2. Democratic Member Control – Cooperatives tives away from a focus on serving member activi- are democratic organizations controlled by their ties – not as a reaction to USDA 3. To that end, it members, who actively participate in setting is worth listing the 1966 statement in abbreviated their policies and making decisions. Men and form: women serving as elected representatives are ac- countable to the membership. In primary coop- 1. Open, voluntary membership. eratives, members have equal voting rights (one 2. Democratic governance; one-member, one-vote member, one vote), and cooperatives at other in primary cooperatives. levels are also organized in a democratic man- 3. Limited return on equity. ner. 4. Surplus belongs to members. 3. Member Economic Participation – Members 5. Education of members and public in cooperative contribute equitably to, and democratically principles and practices. control, the capital of their cooperative. At least 6. Cooperation between cooperatives. part of that capital is usually the common prop- erty of the cooperative. Members usually receive Many of ICA’s members had regarded these as limited compensation, if any, on capital sub- a rigid doctrine, as pointed out by Parnell, rather scribed as a condition of membership. Members than living principles for direction and guidance. allocate surpluses for any or all of the following By setting the new principles within the context of purposes: developing their cooperative, possi- an identity statement and a defi nition of unchang- bly by setting up reserves, part of which at least ing cooperative values, they are pragmatic and not would be indivisible; benefi tting members in doctrinaire guidelines (MacPherson 1995). Some of proportion to their transactions with the coop- the ICA 7 principles are clear lines to follow, such erative; and supporting other activities approved Comparing Cooperative Principles 5 by membership. learning and experience (MacPherson, 2004). They 4. Autonomy and Independence – Coopera- provide a basis for determining what is, and what is tives are autonomous, self-help organizations not, a cooperative, but they are more expansive cri- controlled by their members. If they enter into teria than USDA 3. Yet, their purpose is not entirely agreements with other organizations, includ- to serve as criteria. By including a defi nition in the ing governments, or raise capital from external identity statement, the ICA principles function as a sources, they do so on terms that ensure demo- guide to realize and follow the values that coopera- cratic control by their members and maintain tives have established throughout their history. their co-operative autonomy. There are at least three topics that are particularly 5. Education, Training, and Information – Coop- relevant for comparing ICA 7 with USDA 3: (1) eratives provide education and training for their individual member ownership, (2) concern for com- members, elected representatives, managers, and munity, and (3) member solidarity as an identifying employees so they can contribute effectively trait of cooperatives. to the development of their cooperatives. They The user-owner of the USDA 3 is not explicitly inform the general public – particularly young stated as a principle in and of itself in ICA 7. Fur- people and opinion leaders – about the nature thermore, nothing is stated about common or collec- and benefi ts of cooperation. tive property in USDA 3. 6. Cooperation Among Cooperatives – Coopera- The 3rd principle of ICA 7 draws a distinction tives serve their members most effectively and between the common property of the cooperative, strengthen the cooperative movement by work- while the idea of individual ownership is described ing together through local, national, regional, in terms of subscriptions for membership and in the and international structures. allocation of surpluses to members in proportion to 7. Concern for Community – Cooperatives work use. Yet, as discussed by David Ellerman, in many for the sustainable development of their commu- cooperatives, individual capital accounts have an nities through policies approved by their mem- essential role in assigning ownership for a mem- bers. ber’s past contributions. This equity is returned to (Source: http://ica.coop/en/what-co-op/co-oper- members after their participation in the cooperative ative-identity-values-principles) ends (Ellerman). Furthermore, the 3rd ICA principle states that The ICA defi nition of a cooperative, while ex- a cooperative may want to set aside unallocated pressed in different words from the USDA state- surpluses for an indivisible reserve. In the event a ment, is concise and readily understandable by the cooperative were sold to investors, the indivisible general public. reserve would not be distributed to members but The ICA’s statement of cooperative values estab- instead delivered to other cooperative associations. lishes a universality and timelessness, as the USDA Indivisible reserves are essentially a constraint im- 3 principles do without asserting values. These posed at an earlier point in time by former members values were articulated in a 1992 ICA publication who have retired from participation in the coopera- by Sven Book. He drew these values, working in a tive. Such reserves would confl ict with the explana- team, out of studying the history and traditions of tion of USDA principles as recognizing the interests cooperatives throughout the world (Book). of current members without regard to those in the The sections of the principles’ statement (in italic future (Dunn). type, above) denote where ICA 7 has commonalities The point being made by this comparison is that with USDA 3. But while ICA 7 covers user control these two sets of principles are in sharp contrast on and benefi ts, it does not offer an explicit statement the idea of ownership; it is not intended as a recom- about user or member ownership, which is the fi rst mendation for changes in either statement. principle of USDA 3. A second point of contrast with USDA 3 is the The ICA 7 principles are considered to be a liv- ICA’s seventh principle, “concern for community,” ing document that develops over time from shared which was entirely new in 1995, whereas the other 6 Comparing Cooperative Principles principles were revisions of previously existing sidering a statement by Cooperative Business New statements. The late Ian Macpherson1 explained Zealand: “What We Mean by a Cooperative” (http:// the background to its adoption and provided several nz.coop/understanding-co-ops/). It accomplishes justifi cations (2012). He references a substantial his- identity by emphasizing attributes of member soli- tory throughout the world where individuals orga- darity and mutuality. Following Parnell, the New nized cooperatives in their communities to improve Zealand statement is not expressed as principles. It their well-being in the context of often harsh eco- starts with a defi nition: “An enterprise, freely estab- nomic conditions. lished, that is owned and controlled by a group of MacPherson makes an “origins” argument, that legal persons for the purpose of equitably providing cooperatives arise out of communities and are not themselves with mutual benefi ts arising from the the creation of national governments or international activities of the enterprise, and not primarily from institutions. The concerns of communities are the investment in it.” impetus to start cooperatives so this concern is es- Each phrase of the defi nition is then given ex- sential to their existence. plicit detailed statements. For example, “… the In addition, MacPherson argues that all the solidarity of the group needs to be maintained and cultural connections of community are what makes developed.” In addition, a cooperative is “not based cooperatives work well and provides their distinc- on one set of members gaining benefi ts from other tiveness. In his words: “It (the cooperative move- members of the group.” ment) was based on bonds of association that were The word “solidarity” is widely used. But the different from those that characterized joint stock idea of cooperative “members’ solidarity” involves and fi rms” (2012). Cooperatives are reciprocations and consensus within a distinct group both businesses and providers of services based on and is different from the application of the term for member needs, in addition to market demand. Meet- socio-economic classes or national identities. ing unmet needs is a distinctive feature of coopera- Transparency about earnings, distributions, tives that MacPherson considers as demonstrating policies, and decisions about new strategic direc- their concern for communities. tions is a feature that is common to all user owned Some experts criticize this principle for extending and controlled businesses, whether constituted as the mission beyond the boundaries of cooperative cooperatives or as alternative business organiza- membership and of offering nothing that is distinc- tions. Transparency, in turn, often leads to internal tive to cooperatives (Davis). Clearly, there are disagreements by users, which is a result that fi rms many organizations with concern for community without transparency can avoid (Reynolds). that are not cooperatives. MacPherson’s discussion The cooperative difference is in the practice of of the importance of community to cooperatives solidarity as a commitment to resolving differ- explains the motivations for the ICA to adopt the ences to prevent departures or exiting by members. seventh principle. But it is different from the other In contrast, user fi rms, such as those organized by principles in its external focus. lawyers or small technology businesses, will often The fi nal point to consider is “solidarity” as one have departures over confl icts in policy or strategic of the ICA’s values of cooperatives and its potential directions with member solidarity noticeably absent. for providing a key to creating distinctive identity. The cooperative identity offered by the USDA 3 Similar to community, solidarity might be important defi nition would be improved by asserting the users’ to cooperatives but not be regarded as distinctive or commitment to consensus and to each other’s fair essential. Yet, it may have distinctiveness if it is tied treatment. Member solidarity requires more user to the essential workings of members’ relationship action than just having mutual economic interests. with, and responsibility to, one another. While this attribute falls under member governance, Some help in this regard may come from con- the user-control principle is not equivalent to the ne- cessity of voice for all members, and their commit- 1 Ian MacPherson had led the ICA project on revising the ment to keep one another in the membership rather cooperative principles. He passed away on November 16, 2013. than let the exit option run its course (Hirschman). Comparing Cooperative Principles 7 Cooperative solidarity is also operative when pursuit is defi nitely a legacy of Ian MacPherson. a membership leaves behind a fi nancially sound business for younger members to continue. When References cooperatives maintain a commitment to not demu- tualize, they exhibit solidarity that is not present Abrahamsen, Martin A. 1976. Cooperative Busi- in many other types of user-owned and controlled ness Enterprise. McGraw-Hill, Inc. businesses. Baarda, James R. 1979. Cooperative Law and Co- operative Principles are Closely Connected. Amer- Principles and the distinctiveness of cooperatives ican Institute of Cooperation Yearbook. Washington, DC. Commenting and critiquing cooperative princi- ples is a far easier task than having to prepare such Barton, David G. 1989. Principles. Cooperatives in statements. The two sets of defi nitions of coopera- Agriculture. David Cobia, ed. Prentice Hall. tives and principles discussed above have all made Book, Sven A. 1992. Co-operative Values in a important and different contributions. Changing World. International Co-operative USDA 3 exhibits the virtues of being a concise Alliance. defi nition that includes essential attributes of co- operatives. Whether or not additional attributes are http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/icic/orgs/ica/pubs/stud- needed for a distinctive identity was examined in ies/Co-operative-Values-in-a-Changing- World- 1/ this paper. index.html. For most intents and purposes, the expression of Buchanan, James A. and Gordon Tullock 1962. USDA 3 as a defi nition is satisfactory. It is sug- The Calculus of Consent. (Ann Arbor, MI: Uni- gested that the attribute of solidarity, meaning the versity of Michigan Press). members’ concern for one another’s economic in- terests in the cooperative, would convey a decisive Davis, Peter. 1997. Co-operative Identity and distinctiveness. Member solidarity supports, and Co-operative Management. International Co- does not confl ict with, an individualist perspective, operative Alliance. unless the latter is defi ned in the narrow sense of http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/icic/def-hist/gen- atomistic individualism. info/Co-operative-Identity-and-Co-operative- The ICA took up the issue of cooperative identity. M1.html Its identity statement seeks differentiation of coop- eratives from other forms of business and from the Dunn, John R. 1988. Basic Cooperative Principles command systems of governments. The argument and their Relationship to Selected Practices. was made above that while individual ownership is Journal of Cooperatives (formerly the Journal of a common element of all businesses, it has specifi c Agricultural Cooperation) V. 3. forms that deserve to be more highlighted in the Ellerman, David. 2007. On the Role of Capital in ICA statement. “Capitalist” and in Labor-Managed Firms. Review It was also pointed out, drawing upon comments of Radical Political Economics. V. 39 No. 2, winter. of cooperatives experts, that Principle 7, “concern for communities,” may not offer much distinctive- Emelianoff, Ivan V. 1942. Economic Theory of Co- ness. If cooperatives accomplish a concern for the operation: Economic Structure of Cooperative benefi ts of all members and an active democratic Organizations (Ann Arbor, MI: Edward Brother, consensus on decisions, they will set an example Inc.). that communities around the world will want to Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Eco- emulate. nomics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). In closing, the effort to understand the history of, and apply critical analysis to, the defi nitions and Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loy- principles is an important part of keeping coop- alty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, eratives relevant and successful. This intellectual and States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). 8 Comparing Cooperative Principles Hoyt, Ann. 1996. And Then There Were Seven: Positioning Farmer Cooperatives for the Future: A Cooperative Principles Updated. Cooperative Report to Congress. 1987 (Washington, DC: Grocer, January/February. http://www.uwcc.wisc. USDA/ACS). edu/staff/hoyt/princart.html. Parnell, Edgar. 1995. Reinventing the Cooperative Ling, Charles K. 2013. Essential economic role of (Oxfordshire, UK: Plunkett Foundation). farmer co-ops. Rural Cooperatives, November/De- cember. Reynolds, Bruce J. 1997. Decision-Making in Cooperatives with Diverse Member Interests MacPherson, Ian. 1995 a. Cooperative Principles (USDA: RBS Research Report 155). http://www. For The 21st Century (Geneva, Switzerland: rurdev.usda.gov/supportdocuments/RR155.pdf International Cooperative Alliance). Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and MacPherson, Ian. 1995 b. Speech Introducing Signifi cance of Economic Science. London: Mac- the Co-operative Identity Statement to the 1995 millan. Manchester Congress of the ICA. One Path to Co-operative Studies (Victoria, Canada: New Schaars, Marvin A. 1957. Basic Principles of Rochdale Press). Cooperatives: Their Growth and Development Agricultural Cooperation: Selected Readings, ed. MacPherson, Ian. 2012. Cooperatives’ Concern For Abrahamsen & Scroggs (Minneapolis: University of The Community: From Members Towards Local Minnesota Press). Communities’ Interests (presentation at the Interna- tional Conference, “Promoting the Understanding Schelling, Thomas C. 1978. Micromotives and Mac- of Cooperatives for a Better World,” Venice, Italy: robehavior (New York: W.W. Norton & ). March 15-16- Euricse Working Paper Series ISSN Schelling, Thomas C., 1963. The Strategy of Con- 2281-8235). fl ict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Nourse, Edwin G. 1927. The Legal Status of Agri- Zeuli, Kimberley A. and Robert Cropp. 2004. cultural Co-operation (New York: Macmillan Cooperatives: Principles & Practices in the 21st Co.). Century (Madison: University of Wisconsin Exten- Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Ac- sion, A1457). tion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).